Resources

Samuel Townend KC appeared for the successful Claimant in a Part 8 trial concerning whether an engineering consultancy agreement made adequate provision for the final date for payment as required by s.110(1)(b) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 and, if not, paragraph 8 of Part II of the Scheme for Construction Contracts was to apply.  In those circumstances two pay less notices served by the employer were out of time and the notified sums had to be paid.The trial additionally concerned the Defendant employer’s argument that there was a statutorily compliant estoppel by convention, the existence of which case meant that the matter was not appropriate for Part 8 and that full Part 7 case management to trial was required.  In the alternative, that a stay of enforcement should apply given the Claimant’s financial position.Eyre J. decided in favour of the Claimant in all respects.You can read the full judgment here.

In this Judgment, the Court determined the amount the Claimant was entitled to following a default judgment on liability for damages to be assessed. Importantly, that liability was for a building liability order ("BLO") under section 130 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) of Sto Germany for a contribution in respect of its UK subsidiary’s liability for defective cladding products under section 149 of the BSA.This is the first reported judgment in which:The Court has made a BLO by default judgment.The Court has had to assess the respective “just and equitable” contribution for a cladding produce supplier and a design and build contract.The Court held that the cladding product supplier was 87.5% responsible.James Frampton acted for the Claimant, instructed by Charles Russell Speechlys LLP. The Second Defendant did not take part in the proceedings.You can read the full judgment here. This case also made it onto top story of the Construction Enquirer see here.

In a ruling on 22 May 2026, the public procurement challenges brought against the Gambling Commission concluded with indemnity costs orders being made against the unsuccessful claimants in favour of both the Gambling Commission and the interested party, Allwyn.Following a lengthy trial which ended earlier this year, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE comprehensively dismissed the claims brought by Northern & Shell plc and The New Lottery Company Limited.The claims concerned the Gambling Commission’s conduct of the competition for the Fourth National Lottery Licence (the Process Claim) and modifications to the subsequent agreement with Allwyn (the Modifications Claim). This was the third successful outcome for the Gambling Commission, following earlier proceedings brought by Camelot UK Lotteries Ltd and International Game Technology Plc.In the recent decision concerning costs, the Court described the claimants' conduct as highly unreasonable and wholly out of the norm. She ordered payments on account of costs of 75% (to the Gambling Commission) and 70% (to Allwyn), pending agreement or detailed assessment of the costs. The Judge also rejected the claimants' application for permission…